Sure, it is, just as we should expect, along the same lines as the others; backhanded, indirect, and “full of subtlety,” (cf Pascendi – 1) but make no mistake, it was a response to the dubia just the same.

Before we get to that…

As we’ve noted previously in this space, Francis harbors an image of Christ that is “diminished and distorted,” (cf Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apotolique) inasmuch as it entails a singular focus on Jesus as the itinerant doer-of-good-deeds who was persecuted by the powerful of this world in the first century; to the utter exclusion of the Risen One who is King of kings and Lord of lords.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that he chose to open his address by citing the very same nonsense:

At Christmas, we are called to say “yes” with our faith, not to the Master of the universe, and not even to the most noble of ideas, but precisely to this God who is the humble lover.

Yes, God forbid we should say “yes” to Christ the Pantocrator who reigns over all things!

Truly, it is amazing that this man’s faith is so utterly impoverished that he thinks nothing of plainly speaking as if Christ the King and the Suffering Servant who laid down His life for us are two entirely different persons.

An honest reading of Francis cannot but lead one to recognize that he considers the former to be the “real” Christ, and the latter a mere invention of “triumphalists” and “rigorists.”

It was this same group of allegedly hidebound traditionalists that came to rest squarely in Francis’ cross-hairs as he went on to take aim at those who would resist “reform” (code for Amoris Laetitia and all that it entails, as we shall see), saying:

There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing). This last kind of resistance hides behind words of self-justification and often accusation; it takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.

Are there any so naïve as to deny that Francis is here speaking of those who would dare to oppose the agenda set forth in Amoris Laetitia in favor of “taking refuge” in the very words of Christ, the dogmatic definitions issued by the Council of Trent, and the immemorial practices of the Church as based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition; chief among them, the authors of the dubia?

Now, pay very close attention to what Francis had to say as he went on to address the dubia about as plainly and directly as he likely ever will:

All this is to say that the reform of the Curia is a delicate process that has to take place in fidelity to essentials, with constant discernment, evangelical courage and ecclesial wisdom, careful listening, persevering action, positive silence and firm decisions.

Even though Francis is referencing the “reform of the Curia,” there can be no doubt whatsoever that this is nothing more than Francis-speak for the program set forth in Amoris Laetitia.

Think about it:

Whatever efforts Francis has made concerning the reform of the Curia properly speaking (as opposed to making personnel changes that stack the Curial deck with like minded progressives) have hardly been met with any widespread “resistance.”

The most noteworthy exception, however, concerns an action that Francis cited later in his address:

With the two Motu Proprios of 15 August 2015, provisions were made for the reform of the canonical process in cases of declaration of marital nullity: Mitis et Misericors Iesus for the Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, and Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus for the Code of Canon Law.

Francis cited these “Motu Prorios” in his address as examples of “some steps already taken” according to “recommendations made by the Cardinals … by the Heads of the Dicasteries and other experts and individuals.”

Really?

As I recall, Francis unilaterally sprung these changes to the annulment process on the Church largely by surprise, and with little or no consultation on the part of his cardinals.

In any case, the important thing to note here is that this effort stands out among the so-called Curial reforms Francis mentioned in his address as the only one that has been met with any widespread resistance, and it just so happens to be directly related to his nefarious aspirations vis-à-vis Amoris Laetitia!

The bottom line here is simple:

When it comes to resisting Amoris Laetitia – the dubia in particular -Francis is telling us that we can expect nothing more from him than “persevering action, positive silence and firm decisions.”

Let that sink in for a moment…

In other words, he is indicating in no uncertain terms that his heels are dug in; or to rephrase his disposition in more canonically appropriate terms:

Francis is making his pertinacity (obstinate adherence to grave error) plain.

I am certain that there are many who will continue, even now, to insist that Francis has yet to respond to the dubia, and likely even more who will maintain that the fact of his pertinacity has yet to be established.

To such persons I must ask, yet again:

What more must Francis say or do in order to make it plain that he is firmly committed to opposing that which has been taught by the Church with Divine authority?

Did this post bring the present situation in the Church into sharper focus for you? If so, will you help us continue the effort in 2017?

Related Posts

Latest Comments

tradprofessorDecember 22, 2016

It would appear the holy, faithful Cardinal Burke has inadvertently stepped in to settle your recent “debate” regarding when a pope becomes an antipope. His view as former head of the Vatican equivalent of a supreme court, is that when a pope speaks heresy he ceases to be pope. He said nothing about warnings, formal this and formal that. A heretic can’t be pope, he says. This man expresses heresy almost daily. In this posting, it is clear once more that his god is not our Catholic God. What greater heresy is there?

I have long suspected that in the passion of the Church (which will mirror the passion of Christ) Francis will be the Judas as Benedict will be Peter who flees the scene (in this case flees Rome, like the apostles fled from the garden). If you want an insight into this man, read Saint Faustina’s diary entry for December 17th 1936.

We didn’t need Cardinal Burke to tell us in 2016 what Sedevacantists have been telling us since the 1970s. Burke and Louie aren’t offering something earth shattering. And the sedevacantists have been warning us since the 1970s about the underlying cause——Vatican II Constitutions (modernism and heresy). Furthermore Amoris Laetitia has merely ratified what dioceses in Germany, the Netherlands and the US (and likely many others) have been practicing for at least a decade using Vatican II as a justification—–that is, long before both Bergoglio and Ratzinger were elected to the papacy.

In the same, recent interview that Cd Burke offered his “sede” position on a heretical pope he also reported that his dubia document did not accuse Bergoglio of heresy. Burke, et al. are merely asking for clarification not accusing him of heresy. If this is the case, why would Bergoglio respond? And if Bergoglio fails to respond any public “correction” Burke, et al., might publish has, as far as I can determine, no force of Canon law and no effect on the Church in general. So what’s the point. It’s theater.

One last thing: Louie acts as if Bergoglio is a one man heresy show. That is, Burke could save the Church if only he (or Louie) declares Bergoglio a heretic. Give Bergoglio the heave-ho and all is saved. Even if Burke did make such a declaration does Louie actually think the College of Cardinals would back him up? The entire hierarchy as been infected and corrupted with modernism and heresy. In 1958 Roncalli (posing as John XXIII) began appointing modernist bishops to run dioceses and their seminaries. And promoting modernist bishops to Cardinal. All the subsequent modernist, heretic popes (Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio) have done the same. With the exception of a few remnants around the world the hierarchy is firmly modernist and heretical. Vatican II is the new Magisterium. Why do you think Bergoglio acts so scandalously yet with complete impunity? He knows where the consensus of this newchurch lies. This is bad, this is really bad. This will take Our Lady and Heaven to fix. We won’t fix this without cries to Heaven in unison.

Louie,
I agree with you; what more does Francis have to do or say to convince people that he favors the reception of the Sacraments by people living in the state of Mortal sin, that are unrepentant. I also agree with tradprofessor above, it is clear that Francis is a public and pertinacious heretic therefore is no longer the Pope (if he ever was).

I believe that Francis could grow horns, reek of sulfur, and conduct black masses, yet CatholiCucks (aka, NeoCaths like Jimmy Akin) would still find ways to rationalize it all as quite compatible with orthodoxy.

Give the, bishop of Rome credit or maybe say give the devil his due. Francis is stating plainly where he stands and will not back down. At least we know where he stands and that he is the enemy of our faith. Of course, having one in his position being the enemy is no small matter. The battle lines are drawn. Let the battle begin.

The Argentinian ‘Dirty War’ (Guerra Sucia) continues with its papal ‘Process of National Reorganization’ (Proceso de Reorganización Nacional) in full vigour and, in its wake, the inevitable ‘children who have or will disappear’ (los ninos desaparecidos).

“There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing).” Sounds like PF’s resistance to signing the Dubia.

Malevolence is found in ambiguity, innovation & chaos ( the works of the devil), certainly NOT in Tradition.

Thank you, Mr Verrechio, for your love of God and Holy Church and your bona fide efforts to serve God and His Church for the good of your soul and the souls of others. Thank you all who read or comment here for trying hard to love and serve God. This and other Catholic fora are a great consolation and edification.

I and I’m sure most people who know the Faith and employ right reason, acknowledged his pertinacity, beyond any reasonable doubt, years ago. As I and others have said many times over the years, we can’t reasonably come to another conclusion as to formal heresy. I haven’t been able to read or listen to what he writes or says from early on, as there is so much objective evil. I rely on Catholics who uphold the True Faith to inform me of the most egregious utterances or actions. For loss of office, we await action by some of the successors of Peter but we continue to warn those for whom we have responsibility against his evil emanations. I can’t imagine the Church being in a worse state. Words fail me. Our hearts are broken. Let us hold each other up.

True. Francis cannot destroy the Church. Besides, the church that Francis presides over is the Conciliar Church, which isn’t the same as the True Church. The True Church is somewhat hidden or eclipsed, but she still exists. And Francis is only the latest in a line of Modernist that date back to the Council. It’s inevitable that we would eventually have a Pope like Francis. I’m just surprised that we didn’t have an uber-modernist like Francis sooner. Perhaps God was being merciful, and hoping that we would get our act together.

It’s better to have an extreme Modernist Pope like Francis, who doesn’t hide his intentions, rather than have a Pope like Benedict who wasn’t upfront so much about his Modernism. But he was definitely a Modernist. Now that Francis is an open Modernist, we can oppose him and stand up for Truth. But going the Sedevacantist route will only make it more difficult. Sedevacantism is an extreme error also.

Yes, going to Mass at an SSPX chapel is fine. I would not go anywhere else. I have serious doubts about the validity of the new ordinations of Paul VI.
The question re confessions is tied to the first. If you had a priest ordained in the old rite by a bishop consecrated in the old rite the confession would be valid. If he was ordained in the new rite, or in the old rite but by a bishop consecrated in the new rite, then I would avoid him because we are forbidden to approach doubtful sacraments.
Is the novus or do valid? Some say yes, some, no. Some say it’s not certain either way. The words of the consecration of the chalice is not what St Thomas and St Pius V said were necessary. There is also a defect of intention manifested by the priest, because the novus ordo has eliminated every reference to the propitiatory nature of the Mass. By using the novus ordo, the intention to therefore do what the Church does on the part of the priest is not there. Again, we are forbidden to approach a doubtful sacrament.
No, Francis could not possibly be the pope, because he is not a Catholic, and outward profession of the true Faith is a necessary condition for membetship in the Church.

So to summarise the answers to your questions:
1. Yes, it is one of the only places you can go, because not many other places can absolutely guarantee the sacraments are valid.
2. Probably not.
3. Probably not.
4. Definitely not.

The Church is a visible institution, The Mystical Body of Christ. Vatican I taught that there are two visible bonds which unite a person to Her, and to the other members of Her. These are the bond of Faith and the bond of Charity.
To break either bond automatically severs one from the Church; public heretics break the visible bond of Faith; schismatics break the visible bond of Charity.
To publicly deny or reject a teaching of the Church is a denial and rejection of God Himself. These unhappy people are outside the Church, and are automatically inelligible from holding any office in the Church.

Why would it be okay to go to Mass at the SSPX, since they obstinately hold a public heretic as Pope? Isn’t that heretical? Aren’t we supposed to avoid heretic Masses as we avoided the Arians’ Masses during that crisis? Also, don’t they hold that men can be saved in non-Catholic religions (as did Lefevbre), which is heresy?

Please answer soon, as I’m trying to figure out if I can go to SSPX on Christmas.

The Una Cum controversy is, in my opinion, an unnecessary division. One goes to Mass to fulfil its Four Ends: Adoration, Atonement, Petition and Thanksgiving. The priest mentioning the name of the man he believes to be the pope is only an incidental. He is simply mistaken on an issue in a time of massive and confusion in a situation that is completely unprecedented.

The Sede priests and bishops who make this a cause for division are ex-Society themselves. It is not a heresy to think Bergoglio is pope. It can lead to problems, but is not a heresy itself. My position is to take the minimum stance necessary to keep the Faith. That means Bergoglio is not the pope, and while I do not hold the same positions that the SSPX holds, I love them and support them and receive the Sacraments they provide. They have valid Sacraments (like an oasis in a global Novus Ordo desert wasteland), no heretics in the pulpit (in my experience) , no scandals in the confessional, and the faithful you meet afterwards are mostly the salt of the earth Catholics that just keep holding fast. Of course there will be a look here and there. I go exclusively to the SSPX but keep my sede view under my hat. It’s just the way it is.

The Baptism of desire question sounds like another division that the Dimond brothers raise. Funnily enough, they hold the same moderate view on the Una Cum controversy as I hold above. They don’t see the mentioning of a false pope’s name in the canon as a reason to not attend.

The SSPX do not teach or preach that anyone can be saved in any religion. That’s a Dimond exaggeration. They hold that someone could be brought into the Church and saved by desire. I think the issue needs to be further clarified and tightened up by the Church at some future point. Again, it is an unnecessary division over an issue that needs further clarity from the Church.

If you are looking for a sede position to hold to that avoids unnecessary extremes, and you would also like to receive the many great graces that are there for you at the local SSPX chapel, you might be interested in the “moderate” sede position of John Lane and John Daly. Lane’s St Robert Bellarmine forum is closed but the topics are broad and we’re tightly moderated by John, so the content is solid and is all still able to be read. Keeping a moderate sede position allows one to not break unnecessarily with those who hold the Faith but think Bergy is the pope. It also keeps one in a position that when this crisis is over, you will not have retreated too far to the right that you end up in schism and cannot integrate with the Church.

Take the minimum retreat necessary to keep the faith. Don’t be frightened by those sedes who pile on unnecessary causes for division. By all means go to the SSPX and have a Merry Christmas.

“The SSPX do not teach or preach that anyone can be saved in any religion.”

This is blatantly false.

Fr. Schmidberger, Time Bombs of the Second Vatican Council, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 10: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions, that is to say, if they are in invincible error.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, Angelus Press [SSPX], p. 216: “Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.”

The only so-called proof (that I know of) is Satis Cognitum: “No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter, can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” But the context seems to make it clear that it is talking about prelates who don’t subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff; it isn’t saying that a heretic can’t command in the Church (e.g. be Pope).

The Church is a visible institution, The Mystical Body of Christ. Vatican I taught that there are two visible bonds which unite a person to Her, and to the other members of Her. These are the bond of Faith and the bond of Charity.
To break either bond automatically severs one from the Church; public heretics break the visible bond of Faith; schismatics break the visible bond of Charity.
To publicly deny or reject a teaching of the Church is a denial and rejection of God Himself. These unhappy people are outside the Church, and are automatically inelligible from holding any office in the Church.

The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

Just imagine yourself sitting in the room with the Pope listening his ridiculous ranting, criticizing others for what he himself does, unable to recognize why his “subjects” would have a problem with what is plainly heresy, etc. They would be thinking that this man is simply mad and unable to recognize reality because he no longer recognizes truth. Conclusion: We do not recognize him as a true Pope; he is a madman who is in the control of the devil.

“There are also cases of malicious resistance, which spring up in misguided minds and come to the fore when the devil inspires ill intentions (often cloaked in sheep’s clothing).” He adopted that from Hillary’s “Deplorables” speech! She said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he [Trump] has lifted them up.”

What Jorge amounts to is found in his reported New Years resolution;
I conclude by wishing you all a holy, happy and safe holiday break. I thought I would finish by sharing the Holy Father’s New Year’s resolutions list for 2017 1.Don’t Gossip
2.Finish your meals
3.Make time for others
4.Choose ‘humble’ purchases
5.Meet the poor ‘in the flesh’
6.Stop judging others
7.Befriend those who disagree with you
8.Make commitments
9.Ask the Lord
10.Be happy
All very achievable but no mention of the Soul – how can this list be out shone – coming from such a well rehearsed and meaning less bullets points. It beggars believe that his man claims to be Head of the Church – Militant